Search form

Securities Fraud

This class action concerns investment offerings known as United Development Funding (UDF), and specifically UDF III. The complaint alleges that the defendants made false statements about UDF III’s success to induce people to invest or to invest more. It backed up the false statements by distributions—which, according to the complaint, were not in fact earnings from UDF III, but money paid for investments in UDF IV and UDF V. Since the securities were never offered for sale on an exchange, certain federal securities laws do not apply. The complaint claims violations of the Texas Securities Act, among other things.

The complaint for this class action alleges that a Ponzi scheme built around Towers Financial Corporation (TFC) took millions of dollars from over 200,000 investors between the late 1980s and the mid-1990s. One of the parties to this scheme, Steven Hoffenberg, was convicted and sentenced to twenty years in prison, plus fined and required to apy over $450 million in restitution. This case seeks penalties for The Financial Trust Company (TFTC), Jeffrey E. Epstein, and other entities involved in the scheme.

How do people know which cryptocurrencies are worth their offering prices and which are simply scams? The complaint for this class action says that Julian (or Juvane) Spence, the seller of the Dark Ripple or DRIP token, implied that his tokens were related to a more established currency called Ripple. This and other false or misleading statements, the complaint says, were violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as well as common law fraud.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) used satellite imagery to find evidence of fraud in the financials of Desarrolladors Homex SAB de CV, or Homex Development Corporation. According to the complaint for this securities class action, Homex reported that it had built a certain number of homes, but satellite photos at many of the locations showed vacant lots. The SEC eventually charged Homex with a $3.3 billion accounting fraud, and the complaint thus claims that Homex’s financial reports were false, in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, making the company responsible for stock losses when corrective information emerged.

The complaint for this class action alleges that Citizens, Inc. sells insurance policies in foreign countries in order to evade US regulations. It claims that it uses improper growth projections to enroll customers in programs where dividends are used to buy the company’s stock, and sells policies that require payment of US taxes as if they were tax-exempt. Among other things, the company has not held a conference call in two years, and the complaint claims it is under investigation by both the SEC and IRS.

Misstated figures can simply be errors, but the complaint for this class action says that Insys Therapeutics committed fraud by manipulating figures to hide the company’s falling revenues, in violation of Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Why did it feel it needed to do that? Because, the complaint claims, the company had previously engaged in the encouragement of off-label use and a kickback scheme, and after that was revealed, its former customers were reluctant to do business with it.

OvaScience develops fertility treatments using egg precursor cells to improve egg health and in vitro fertilization (IVF). Unfortunately, the complaint for this class action alleges that Ova’s statements about its Augment treatment didn’t just violate the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; it says they were also fraudulent. Ova claimed to be on track to sell 1,000 cycles of its Augment treatment in 2015, but by late September announced it had only sold about 35; also, the complaint says that when closely examined, the data offered proved much less promising than the company had implied. By August 2017, the stock had fallen by 97% from its highest point.

It’s a wonder that buyers still exist for new cryptocurrrencies that show no signs of any serious underpinnings to support their claims. The complaint for this class action alleges that BitConnect coins are unregistered securities, a fraud, and a Ponzi scheme. Income from BitConnect coins is purportedly obtained through up to 40% interest per month, an additional daily rate of interest, profits generated by “volatility software,” and a commission on purchases made by referrals. The complaint alleges that BitConnect coins are unregistered securities, sold in violation of the Securities Act of 1933, and that the defendants have engaged in common fraud as well as fraud in the purchase or sale of securities in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Yelp is famous for its online reviews, but it also offers free and paid advertising and other services. Local businesses are a primary source of its income. But the complaint says that the company gave a false picture of its prospects for 2017 by failing to reveal expected customer retention problems caused by changes in the way the company was doing business.

At issue in this class action are nearly $4 million worth of investments the plaintiffs believed they were making into a new cryptocurrency from Monkey Capital prior to its initial coin offering (ICO). The investments were made primarily in bitcoins. The complaint contends that cryptocurrencies are actually unregistered securities and asks for relief from Monkey Capital’s alleged wrongdoing on that basis. According to the complaint, no ICO took place, and Monkey’s fundraising website disappeared. The complaint claims that cryptocurrencies are securities and that Monkey’s actions were an unregistered offer and sale of securities and fraud, among other things, in violation of the Securities Act of 1933 and Florida state laws.